If we read dystopian SF, the future will mirror it, or something.

[Tower75]

Hi, all.

Thought this was fairly interesting, apologies if it's been posted elsewhere, or simply deemed boring.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28974943

It's an interesting thought: if we read and watch nothing but dystopian-future SF then we'll grow up in a world that'll mirror it.

It's one of the reasons why SF always puts me off to be honest, it seems that it's always grim-dark and brutal and corporation-run, and a lot of the time people have plugs or machines in their brains that allow people to exist and experience things digitally. It just rubs me the wrong way. That's not to say that I want to read the Hungry Caterpillar all the time, but I like my future a bit brighter.

Granted, in fantasy there's normally an ancient-evil awakening and it's fairly dark, too, but it doesn't seem to have this dark, oppressive "cyber punk" feel to it. At least in my view.

Any way, I thought it was an interesting article.

 

[Ogma]

Hi, all.

Thought this was fairly interesting, apologies if it's been posted elsewhere, or simply deemed boring.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28974943

It's an interesting thought: if we read and watch nothing but dystopian-future SF then we'll grow up in a world that'll mirror it.

It's one of the reasons why SF always puts me off to be honest, it seems that it's always grim-dark and brutal and corporation-run, and a lot of the time people have plugs or machines in their brains that allow people to exist and experience things digitally. It just rubs me the wrong way. That's not to say that I want to read the Hungry Caterpillar all the time, but I like my future a bit brighter.

Granted, in fantasy there's normally an ancient-evil awakening and it's fairly dark, too, but it doesn't seem to have this dark, oppressive "cyber punk" feel to it. At least in my view.

Any way, I thought it was an interesting article.

But being aware of the dangers of a dystopian-future may help us avoid it. Dystopian fiction isn't simply a list of technological advances. It is about the failure to control the darker side of human nature, be it cruelty or willful ignorance, either because we succumb to it or we address it with something worse. The only technology needed in Fahrenheit 451 was some matches.

As for the Hungry Caterpillar, if you plugged in your control..er..interface like the rest of us... you could experience in real time eating one apple, two pears...

 

[Tower75]

That's a fair argument, and no, I shall not be jacking or interfacing, you can't make me. Hmm... they come in red...

 

[farntfar]

This is something that I've felt for a while now, that it's a shame that SFF has stopped being so hopeful.

The stories of the post war period, through the 50s, 60s and 70s particularly, tended to be either great positive expansion stories, the science will set us all free stories or stories of breaking out of the shackles of oppression.
Of course there were fairly grim ones too, as warnings of where we could go wrong, but the overall vision of the future was positive.

Nowdays, in a spirit of apparent "realism", stories tend to be much darker and especially avoid happy endings.

Well I understand that happy endings are all a bit fairytale, and life isn't like that, but they at least leave you with something to look forward too.
And if you have a positive view of the future, aren't you more likely to get there?

A practice, which is often taught at management courses and the like, is to imagine that you've reached your goal, and then look backwards to see how you got there.
Or as they say in Julian May's Galactic Milieu books: High thoughts everyone!

 

[Zoe Mackay]

Ah, this is the old "Science Fiction is about the future" article again. farntfar is right, in that stories from the 50s, particularly, were very positive about the future of humanity. Then in the 60s you get the more sociologically worried ones, in a period the Wonderbook describes as "form related" - there's lots of experimentation in terms of how stories are written, and a growing uncertainty about reality that absolutely cannot be related to LSD. The seventies give us some very uncertain stories about the effectiveness of military intervention and the negative effects on combatants and civilians.

In short, Science Fiction is mostly about the present - the reason there's so much dystopian fiction around now is a lasting worry about things like energy security and climate, and about employment and careers, particularly amongst teenagers and young people. This isn't a surprise to anyone who actually pays attention, but apparently it is to some journalists and, curiously, Neal Stephenson.

 

[Boaz]

Earlier this year, a coworker asked me, "Did you ever notice that Star Trek is the only sci-fi story where it's better in the future?"

 

[Hex]

Wouldn't Iain M Banks' The Culture novels count as somewhere things are better?

As for the article, surely the point of sff is to reflect our concerns about now, not to provide a conceptual blueprint for scientists to develop shiny things? (although obviously the sff I read is about jolly space romps and unicorns)

Oops. I should read more carefully. Ahem. What Robert Mackay said.

 

[Michael Colton]

In short, Science Fiction is mostly about the present - the reason there's so much dystopian fiction around now is a lasting worry about things like energy security and climate, and about employment and careers, particularly amongst teenagers and young people. This isn't a surprise to anyone who actually pays attention, but apparently it is to some journalists and, curiously, Neal Stephenson.

I would have to agree with this for the most part. SF is about the present and always has been. Stories started taking a corporatist turn because reality took a corporatist turn, biopunk is a thing because global warming and swine flue are things, cyberpunk became a thing because punk and the digital became things (something that the cyberpunk authors readily admit was the reasoning for the change in focus). It is also why traditional cyberpunk almost cannot be written anymore - the present that generated it no longer exists. So we have post-cyberpunk genres that reflect the present.

 

[Vertigo]

Rather than saying SF is about the present I'd say it's about current fears or hopes. Sometimes one dominates, sometimes the other.

I don't think current SF is particularly pessimistic. As Hex observed, Banks' Culture books are pretty optimistic and I'd say most books I read are either optimistic or neutral. Thinking of Hamilton, Asher, Bear Egan. Even military SF is not necessarily pessimistic or dystopian it just accepts that we have always had wars and are always likely to (though I suppose you could call that pessimistic!). In fact the more I think about it the more I'd say dystopian is less common now than a few decades back.

Possibly it is more popular for films as lots of conflict is generally more dramatic. I'd say there are far more conflict based films than feel good based films (if we ignore comedies).

 

[Michael Colton]

Rather than saying SF is about the present I'd say it's about current fears or hopes. Sometimes one dominates, sometimes the other.

I don't think current SF is particularly pessimistic. As Hex observed, Banks' Culture books are pretty optimistic and I'd say most books I read are either optimistic or neutral. Thinking of Hamilton, Asher, Bear Egan. Even military SF is not necessarily pessimistic or dystopian it just accepts that we have always had wars and are always likely to (though I suppose you could call that pessimistic!). In fact the more I think about it the more I'd say dystopian is less common now than a few decades back.

Possibly it is more popular for films as lots of conflict is generally more dramatic. I'd say there are far more conflict based films than feel good based films (if we ignore comedies).

The not 'particularly pessimistic' is an important point. Even with dystopian works, the theme of humanity and love being triumphant in a dystopian world is often the underlying theme. That is not necessarily pessimistic. Just as melodrama is used to explore what it means to be human during the swing between extremes, dystopian themes can be used in non-pessimistic ways.

 

[Null_Zone]

I've read an awful lot of nuclear holocaust fiction, humanity has avoided it.
I've read an awful lot of 90s Japan will rule the world fiction, well that turn out wrong with that whole lost decade ( well twenty years now).
I've read an awful lot of Oklahoma style militias will destroy the world, well 9/11 changed that.
I've read a lot of post 9/11 Europe will be a caliphate with five years, nothing so far.

Or maybe bbc columnists get bribed to publicize books these days.

 

[Mangara]

I think with SF what I find is that the general tone reflects the general thoughts on the period of the population.

Dystopian fiction is so big right now because the general mood of the world is low thanks to the increasing threat of terrorism and the recent recession. Our lives are becoming increasingly less social and more reliant on technology, and I think people are afraid of where it may lead.

SF can act as a warning, it's just depends if society picks up on that fact at the time...

 

[Bick]

I agree with Robert McKay's comments above about SF reflecting the present. I have to disagree a bit with the OP's opinion that SF is so dark and negative these days though - its not all like that. Some modern SF is rather dark for sure, but much of it isn't grim and negative at all. What about authors like Weber or McDevitt? British SF tends toward the darker toned works perhaps, but Brits have always liked to pessimistically speculate I think, regardless of the decade, compared to Americans.

 

[Vince W]

I think publishers have latched onto a selling product at the moment and it has very little to do with the possible future. These dystopian books are aimed at teenagers and are selling well so publishers are calling for more. When the sales start to fall so will the number of crappy teen dystopian books (and the awful film adaptations). Depressing teens is no kind of challenge anyway.

 

[Abernovo]

What I took out of the article was that Neal Stephenson, and others, had decided to put some of the optimism they grew up reading in science fiction back into their writing. Just because writing styles have (thankfully) moved on from the 70s and 80s, there's no reason that "Big Idea" sci-fi can't have a renaissance. Can a writer not hope to have some small influence on their readers; in fact, should they not hope to have a positive influence on their readers?

I know I was influenced by what I read, and it helped move me into studying science. Why not others?

 

[Zoe Mackay]

I know I was influenced by what I read, and it helped move me into studying science. Why not others?

I think it's very difficult to write to inspire, and it's very difficult to change the direction of the zeitgeist. There's no particular reason to not write anything - pessimism and optimism and forward-looking and inside-looking have all co-existed at all times. And obviously people can write what they like.

But my point was that bemoaning the SF Zeitgeist is a bit silly, because its roots are in society.

 

[Michael Colton]

What I took out of the article was that Neal Stephenson, and others, had decided to put some of the optimism they grew up reading in science fiction back into their writing. Just because writing styles have (thankfully) moved on from the 70s and 80s, there's no reason that "Big Idea" sci-fi can't have a renaissance. Can a writer not hope to have some small influence on their readers; in fact, should they not hope to have a positive influence on their readers?

I know I was influenced by what I read, and it helped move me into studying science. Why not others?

I think part of the issue I have with it is the notion that the later subgenres somehow are not 'big idea' science fiction. Biopunk? Absolutely a 'big idea' theme, in my opinion. As are many of the others.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It's already happened. Read:

The Space Merchants by Frederick Pohl

No we are not going to Venus but look at the marketing in this society. It's 45 years after the Moon landing. When was the last time you heard an economist talk about planned obsolescence on television? Look at the software since 2000.

Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8.

When is Windows 9 coming out? Most SF readers just don't compare the books and reality very seriously. Satire is just a literary characteristic. NOT!

The Screwing of the Average Man (1974) by David Hapgood
http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/rape10.shtml
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0006W84KK/?tag=brite-21

The Shockwave Rider (1975) by John Brunner
http://vxheavens.com/lib/mjb01.html

psik

 

[Michael Colton]

There is a great article that discusses the absurdity of society still using OS's that are fundamentally identical to their 1984 equivalents. I will see if I can find it tonight.